Re: gEDA-dev: [Re: is all EDA as bad as gEDA/pcb?]

[DJ Delorie <dj-at-NOSPAMdelorie_dot_com>]

> I was thinking that the best thing to donate to PCB development in
> particular is pcb manufacturing.  Autorouting BGA got you down?
> Contribute a 6-layer board fab and a BGA FPGA!

How would that make PCB better?

> > Suggestion: when somebody creates a component and saves it, ask them
> > if they want to contribute that component.
> 
> Kind of contradicts the earlier point.  One thing geda/PCB taught me is
> that I shouldn't struggle to avoid making my own symbols and footprints.

Yeah, but consider something that automatically submits symbols and
footprints to gedasymbols?  We're already talking about hooking
gedasymbols into gschem's symbol chooser.

However, I think if we solve the heavy/light symbol issue, and rebuild
the base libraries accordingly, that will make the library situation
much better.

> In a larger sense this gets at the problem of the defaults of PCB vs the
> defaults of gsch2pcb.

Yup.  In the new docs I'm writing, I'm recommending creating an empty
board before running gsch2pcb, to avoid gsch2pcb's old defaults.
Still, the build-board-via-pcb-script thing would help also.

> That's 'rubberband lines' although even I didn't realize what that option
> did until I fixed bugs in it.  Now that it doesn't do wacky things
> with short segments (oh, and vias don't snap to themselves) it's usable.

Yes, but...

> > using the same "preserve straights and 45's as
> > necessary" algorithm that the line was placed with..
> 
> To get that far would probably require a "live autorouter" sort of
> feature.

Or the new "push aside" feature.  The trick is that moving an element
should never create non-45/90 lines, if it can be avoided.

> I sort of agree.  PCB is at a bit of a local maximum.  It's
> surprisingly capable given some of its grotesque innards.  However,
> a new program that started at the base of a taller hill might never
> even reach the current altitude...

I keep thinking it really needs to at least be rewritten in an object
oriented way.  But each time I contemplate that, I think of how much
*does* work and how hard it would be to get all that working again
with a new framework.

> If you want blind and buried vias, donate some board fabs with
> blind/buried vias to whoever gets it working.

Actually, those have hit my personal itch list, now that I can do four
layer boards with blind vias at home.

> Speaking of which, where DO the $$$ go when I see that someone
> donated to the PCB project?

Back when there were some, we just split it evenly, unless the donator
specified otherwise.


_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev